Three Approaches that Make America

Since we seem unable in today’s world to carry on non-partisan political discussions about important policies and societal concerns, perhaps it is time for a new way of looking at things and at our fellow human beings.  Perhaps the following is a way to do this, or to at least assist us all in understanding our society and those who view it somewhat differently than do we.

While the animosity and disruption in our society today is most frequently identified as Red vs. Blue politics, I think that conflict is simply the way something else is manifesting itself.  I think that we are actually seeing a struggle between three different approaches to existence that are all struggling to find their way in the rapidly changing world of today. 

These three approaches are:

1. The Progressives who are for social change.
2. The Conventionals who are for the established institutions.
3. The Populists who are for the people.

The three approaches are actually all interrelated, and we all use all three approaches from time to time, but we generally lean more heavily toward one approach.    These leanings are resulting in support for or opposition to particular political policies and approaches as each approach struggles to become dominant. 

Approach	Progressive	Conventional	Populist
Primary Concern	For Social Change	For Established Institutions	For the People
Role	Starters of Action	Holders of Status Quo	Concluders and Transitioners
Political approaches	·        Socialist ·        Big government ·        Little individual freedom	·        Conservative ·        Democratic republic ·        Restricted freedom	·        Pure democracy ·        Minimal government ·        Individual freedom with minimal restriction
Role	Starter/Instigator/ Visionary/Disrupter	Stabilizer/Inflexible/ Defender/ Institutionalist	Enforcer/Fluid/ Finalizer /Majority
Today primarily	Progressive Left	Traditional moderate Republicans and Democrats	MAGA Republicans
Interactions	Need Populist support to enact social change; if change is effected, need Conventional support to defend and stabilize it.	Will fully embody Progressive vision once convinced to support it and/or once it becomes established.  Slows impulsiveness of Progressives and Populists	Mutability creates vulnerability to new Inspirations. Effectuate/complete a vision and lead transition to new change.

The Progressives

These are the starters, the visionaries.  They have an idea, and they want to see it implemented.  They believe their vision is a good one, though others may disagree with that assessment.  Their goal is to generally upend what currently exists and replace it with what they view as something better, whether that is for society/the world at large or simply in regard to a particular problem.

These are the socialists who seek a bigger government to support and control the societal changes which they advocate.    Socialism, according to Marx, is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.  

But these can also be the Progressive Republicans who would similarly dismantle some of our longstanding institutions in favor of Populist dreams; their method is not socialism but pure democracy which in essence is simply mob rule.   Mob rule, whether in conjunction with or in opposition to a Progressive vision, can upend existing conventions in the hopes of replacing them with something better.

The vision of the Progressives is fragile.  That is, the goal is to demolish what exists and then build anew.  This is not something that people easily jump on board with.  The vision of the Progressives needs the Populists to lend support.  Only with that support will they be able to alter the fixed society of the Conventionals.   Once the Populists take control and convince the Conventionals to support their cause, society will shift as necessary to make the institutional position conform so that the vision of the Progressives can be realized.

The Conventionals

These are the conservatives, not necessarily in the common political connotation, but in the sense that they are reluctant to change.  Rather than jump to support current popular trends or policies, they will instead support longstanding institutions that are a part of the current societal status quo.

This gives stability to a society, but it also encourages a slower evolution as the Conventionals will need both time and strong evidence supporting any need to change that upon which their society is based.  Once a particular society is established with its culture and its underlying institutions, this group will fully embody and defend it.

The problem that the Conventionals face is that once the Populists become the majority, they will either prevail by simple mob rule or, if their populist view conforms with the vison of the Progressives the two will become an almost invincible force.

Today these are the establishment Republicans as well as the traditional moderate or “lunch bucket” Democrats.  While these groups find much to be lacking in our current government, they are more likely to blame the individuals rather than the underlying institutions.  These are often today’s Independents or those who feel that their party, be it Republican or Democrat, has abandoned them.

The Populists

These are the people who believe fully in the individual and oppose large government and/or extensive regulation of behavior.  Populism by its own definition involves a large group of the populace who, by their mere size, are able to sway society.

The Populists are not the visionaries, but they will adopt a vision and bring it to the fore, in essence concluding the work of the Progressives.  As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the Progressives who need the support of the masses.   If their vision is adopted by society at large, it will be the Conventionals who will end up supporting the altered institutions.  The mutable Populists will be ever ready to adopt a new vision and, as such, while they may aid in bringing about changes, they will also be the group that will end one vision and help bring about the transition to yet another new society.

Currently, the Populists most frequently identify as MAGA Republicans, yet in many ways the rank-and-file Democrats are working as Populists as their majority supports the various identity groups and causes that the Progressive Left uses to further its Progressive goals for societal change.  Yet, in another way neither group is truly Populist because each supports only a popular majority of one political group.

Interactions

These three approaches and their interaction manifest on all levels from individual to global issues.  While having leanings towards all three, we will primarily exhibit one approach on any given issue. Believing that our approach is the only one is what causes much friction in today’s world. 

Moreover, we may exhibit one approach on one issue while having a different approach on another.  For example, on the environment one might be a Progressive, but on taxation and governmental spending one might be a Conventional or a Populist.

Identifying as any one of these three types of actors is not permanent.  Once a Progressive’s vision becomes the established reality, that individual may then become a Conventional who supports that reality or perhaps will join a new Populist cause that will lead to a transition away from that vision’s reality to begin the establishment of a new vision.

This is where I think we get into trouble.  If one holds a Progressive or Conventional or Populist position on one issue, the tendency is to assume that they hold the same type of approach on all issues and that such an approach is a permanent personality characteristic.  That assumption makes it hard to find common ground on anything.

The strength of the Conventionals

I think that America needs all three types, but it is the Conventionals upon whom we must count to preserve the Democratic Republic form of government that makes America what it is.

America is an ever-evolving country.  Generally its evolution has been slow but positive.  We need the visions of Progressives to push us forward.  But, in the face of those exciting visions, we need the Conventionals to slow us down, make us think and carefully put one foot in front of the other with deliberation as we move forward.  It is the Conventionals who will ensure that we make positive changes without totally upending those institutions that allow us to have visions and to make changes in the first place.

Populism is also exciting.  But as a form of pure democracy, the bottom line is that it is really mob rule.  Again, it is the institutions of our Democratic Republic that have protected the minority from the negatives of a mob rule where the majority gets its way regardless of what that may mean to our institutions or the individuals whom those institutions protect.

We need all three, but sadly today the Conventionals are being lost, crushed by the visions and popular support coming from both sides of the aisle.  The Progressive Left and its Populist supporters would deny and destroy our Constitution along with many of our laws in order to create their Socialist utopia. The Populist Right, in the name of individual rights and popular rule would disband many of our governmental institutions and agencies that, while perhaps currently bloated or mismanaged, are key parts of the Democratic Republic and the America that these Populists claim to hold dear.

If we could only talk with one another, we might find that there are pieces of the Progressive Left agenda that are worth considering while at the same time the voice of the Populist Right needs to be listened to.  And we need the Conventionals to sustain the scaffolding that will hold all this together as America continues to evolve while remaining the America that is the shining star of democracy for the world.

 

MAKING VICTIMS, DESTROYING SOULS

 My New Found Victimhood

Recently I received an email from the university from which I retired and where I still mentor and teach students.  The email was seeking to “gather a list of First Gen faculty” who could be called upon to mentor “First Gen” students.

Being unfamiliar with the term “First Gen”, I did some research and learned that the U.S. Dept. of Education defines a First Gen or First Generation student as:

An individual, neither of whose parents completed a baccalaureate degree;

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree.

or

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly reside with or receive support from a natural or adoptive parent.

If your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) attended college but do not have a bachelor’s degree (i.e., did not graduate), you are considered to be first-generation.

This is the basic definition used by most colleges and universities, although some further explain that it does not matter about your siblings or any other family members.  That is, one only looks to the parent to determine if someone is First Gen.  Additionally, some schools expand their definition to include individuals whose parents, while having a degree, received that degree from an institution outside the United States.  The Dept. of Education tends to group its discussions of First Generation students with low income or otherwise disadvantaged students.

Think about this.  You could have highly successful parents who, for whatever reason, do not have a college degree, you might be a graduate of an outstanding prep school, have older siblings who are students or graduates of the finest colleges in the country and yet still qualify as a First Gen student and thus be qualified to receive whatever special benefits your college chooses to provide.

When I went to college, I did not consider myself disadvantaged.  I had parents who, though lacking college degrees, were well educated and encouraged education.  I went to good public schools with a high rate of graduates attending college.  My older siblings went to college before me.  Yet, lo and behold, I now discover that I had the disadvantage of being able to label myself as a First Generation student.  Wow.  I too can be a victim.  Actually, I found this thought quite offensive.

Realizing how ridiculous this is, I replied to the email and related my discovery that I am a First Gen.  I further explained that nonetheless, I would not be volunteering for the First Gen mentorship program.  Specifically, I stated, “In my humble opinion, such labels hurt rather than help individual initiative and success.  Obviously, I will not be volunteering as a First Gen mentor though, as you are well aware, I am always ready to help our students as individuals, regardless of whatever label our Woke world might want to place on them.”

I expected to get no response or simply a “thank you for your input” email.  But what I got was an email the total substance of which read “Was that really necessary?” to which I responded with one word:  Yes.   This interchange is not really relevant to the point of this essay, but it does serve to point out that those who are onboard with the Woke practice of labeling and creating political victimhoods are not inclined to want to have a discussion with someone of differing views; indeed, they don’t even want those views to be voiced.

Creating One’s Victimhood “narrative”

On the same day that the above took place I read an article revealing that Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has fabricated his story of growing up poor, then becoming a successful entrepreneur.  He tells the story that he “didn’t grow up in money” and yet was able to create multimillion dollar companies out of nothing.  It turns out, however, that his parents both held graduate degrees and were highly successful professionals.  Vivek went to an elite prep school and had his own stock portfolio created for him by his parents that was “bringing in hundreds of dollars in dividends before he graduated high school and thousands by the time he attended Harvard, according to his 2002-2004 tax returns.”  Moreover, he accepted a scholarship “he previously said he needed in order to pay for law school.” The year he accepted a $90,000 award for law school, “Ramaswamy reported $2,252,209 in total income, according to his tax returns. He reported a total of $1,173,690 in income in the three years prior.”  You can read the full article here:  Vivek’s Background 

Why would someone as successful and seemingly intelligent as Vivek Ramaswamy create this false rags-to-riches narrative?  Why would he or anyone think that in order to be truly successful, to be “approved” by our culture that they need to first be a victim?  Why would anyone choosing to go into the public arena think that his deceptions would not be found out?  And, on a moral level, why would someone choose to deny who his parents really were and the positive help that they provided as they supported their son in his educational and career journey?  Is that not a slap in the face to his family?

The Consequences of Victim Labeling

Our Woke culture, our world of identity groups/politics, demands that we all be either victim or victimizer.  (I have fun wondering how my new-found victim status due to being a defined First Gen fits with my defined – due to my being White - status as victimizer.  Perhaps I should fall into some schizophrenic fugue.)

But seriously, we are all more than one label.  Each of us is an individual, not a two-dimensional cardboard cutout that can be labeled and then either applauded, condemned, or ignored.  We are all multi-dimensional and those dimensions include both positives and negatives, but all are uniquely ours.  They are what make us the INDIVIDUALS that we are.

If we are nothing more than the labels that some group has decided to place upon us then we lose our individual identity.  Not only who we are, but whom we may become is predetermined for us by someone else who may or more likely may not have our individual best interests in mind. 

If all we can be is what the label says we are, then why have any initiative?  And personal responsibility becomes meaningless because our actions are simply the result of our label.  If we are a victim, then we have our victimhood to blame for anything that goes wrong in our life.  After a fall we need not go through any self-examination or attempt to learn lessons for the future; we need not pull ourselves back up and try to do better or improve things for next time.  Rather, we can simply blame our victimhood and those labeled as our victimizers. 

Labeling is nothing more than a way to control us. People have always to some extent labeled others, and probably always will.  But today we have a political power movement that uses Wokeness to label and divide us and as a result take power over us.   You fit this label so you belong in this box.  No need to try to get out – to improve yourself or to go after your individual vision.  We have decided that this is you and therefore this is whom and what you will be.   And too many simply accept such labeling (or mislabeling) without question or, worse yet, seek it out.

Candidate Ramaswamy fell for the Woke labeling and believed that in order to be “successful candidate” he needed to have an appropriate backstory.  He chose the “rags to riches” narrative.  He became something he is not but that which fits within a particular label.  I chose to question my new label and was chastised for such questioning. 

Sadly, labels, and their subsequent import of victim or victimizer, are a part of our culture today.  We seek out and apply labels to both ourselves and others, and in so doing we diminish our humanity.  Accepting societal labeling grants power over us to those who create the labels and apply them.

The question is, are we playing victim, or is the need for victimhood playing us?  Because in the end, we are nothing but our own victimizers if the need to label, to be a victim, destroys us.  As Sophocles wrote in Antigone, "Who is the Slayer? Who is the Victim? Speak."

We need to answer this question for us, for today, for our civilization and our lives.  But we cannot truly answer it without shedding our need for labels, taking back the power over our being that we have granted to others, and becoming each our own unique individual.

Human Dialogue, Freedom, and Censorship

 

As facts start to come out and scandals start to close in, I am reminded of the following phase that stems from Soviet era Russia:  “There is no news in the Truth, and there is no truth in the News (В Правде нет известия, и в Известие нет правды).”

Actually, this stems from the two Russian newspapers – Pravda and Izvestiye.   Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, was considered to be filled with lies even though its name translates as “truth”, while the name Izvestiye, the other Soviet newspaper, translates as “news” and was the official newspaper of the Supreme Soviet.  The saying, at the time, was a joke because all good Russians knew that they could not get the truth or the news from state-controlled media.

Today Americans also have difficulty obtaining news or truth.  The government is too often involved in dissemination and editing of what should be accurate news and truth.  The state of the American media and Americans’ access to news, facts, and truth can be summarized as: 

Let me define truth, for the purposes of this discussion, as that which is in accordance with fact, evidence, and reality.  News I will define as new or noteworthy information in which an audience will likely be interested.

Editorial Discretion has become Political Censorship

The mainstream media today is less interested in providing facts to its readers, viewers, and listeners than it is in pleasing government and elite powers by providing their narratives to audiences rather than facts of a situation.  And audiences are often more interested in the entertainment rather than factual aspects of a story.    Hence, the truth (factual recitation) is not the news, and the news, because it is not factually accurate, is not the truth.

I am not talking about editorial discretion which has always been part of news dissemination.  What to print, where to place a story, how much time/space to give a story – these have always been decisions for editors and have always been colored somewhat by their biases, both conscious and unconscious. 

But today these decisions go far beyond and are far removed from simple editorial discretion.  We now have concrete evidence of state involvement and control of what is/is not “truth” and what information will be disseminated or hidden.   Such involvement has permeated both the actual “news” media as well as social media platforms. 

For example, House investigations now provide documentation that Facebook confirmed to the White House that it was working to accomplish “the administration’s directives” on suppressing content that clashed with its COVID vaccine agenda.  There are processes by which the government can flag certain content on social media and request it be suppressed.  There is also evidence that the White House wanted social media to change its on-line algorithms so that users would see more information from sources supportive of the White House agenda.

The News or Mainstream Media is now also beholden to powers outside of the news itself.  While news editors, as noted above, have always made editorial choices, those editors ensured that the stories presented in their news sections were factual; they left opinion for the opinion pages.  Not so anymore.

Today’s news sources clearly support one or the other political party and every aspect of their “news” reflects that.  Not just the selection of which stories to present, but the manner in which any story is presented. 

The conservative and right-leaning media will slant everything to support right wing positions and politicians while the left-leaning media will slant in the opposite direction.  Stories that cover the front pages of media with one political leaning will be close to non-existent in the media of the opposite political leaning.  Indeed, we now have proof of news sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post deliberately omitting or revising facts of key stories such as the now debunked Russian collusion or the now confirmed story of the Hunter Biden laptop.  Stories that are presented will often be filled with adjectives and other modifiers that, while perhaps appropriate in opinion pieces, are blatant attempts to turn what should be a factual news story into an opinion advocating a particular political position.

Consider the two big stories over the past few days:  the Trump indictments and the concrete evidence of President Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling scheme that resulted in huge monetary payments to the Biden family.    To compare the coverage of these two stories between right and left leaning news media is to read accounts of two seemingly completely different worlds. 

It is next to impossible to find a full and objective account of the Trump charges along with the legal assertions that they are politically motivated and/or a form of election interference.  Similarly, one can barely find the Biden story in left-leaning media, and when one does it is downplayed as simply some sort of Republican witch hunt, while the right-leaning media perhaps over sensationalizes the clearly damning evidence of Biden’s quite likely illegal interactions with foreign countries and the possibility of its compromising of the President. 

The “news” from the left leaning media essentially has already found Trump guilty and Biden completely innocent while the right leaning media takes the opposite view.  This is not news.  This is not truth.  This is bias and propaganda.  And in many instances it is guided by the very people that we elect to protect us and our First Amendment rights. 

Information, Not Censorship, Heals and Sustains America

The First Amendment, a cornerstone of our American democracy, demands a free and objective news media in order that the people can voice and hear a variety of views and make their own decisions.  That others would decide what the people should and should not hear and, worse yet, make judgements about what information is made available in an attempt to do the people’s thinking for them is in complete antipathy to the First Amendment and all it stands for.

When those who should be leading our country become more concerned with their own power than their duty to the country and the people they serve, they find ways to justify their censorship and denial of free speech and the importance of narrative – their narrative – over truth or news.

Suppression of information is often done under the guise of protecting us from “misinformation” though as Robert Kennedy Jr. well-articulated in his July appearance before the House Committee regarding Censorship and Free Speech, the term is often rephrased as “mal-information” – not incorrect but just bad as in information that the government or its lackeys in the media have decided would be bad for the populace to hear, usually because it contradicts the narrative of those in power. 

Our country is split into two camps, and each wants to provide a narrative that benefits them.  To establish that narrative, censorship of truth and news becomes a temptation that is hard to resist.  That, however, is the worst possible reaction.

Words from Kennedy’s opening statement to the House Committee on Censorship are instructive.  He responded to Democrats’ concern about “the need to beat this toxic polarization that is destroying our country today and how do we deal with that?” Kennedy stated: “This kind of division is more dangerous for our country than any time since the American Civil War.  How do we [deal with] that?  Every Democrat on this committee, do you think you can do that by censoring people?  I am telling you, you cannot.  That only aggravates and amplifies the problem.”

Recently Sen. Joe Manchin spoke and wrote about the division in America, stating that the United States is “not designed for” the level of division currently seen within the country, leaving many “common-sense” Americans without a political home.   He wrote:

The extremes on the left and right now control the Democratic and Republican Parties, defining our politics and policy debates. These partisan extremes are in the business of feeding political division and dysfunction everyday – and their business is booming.

They want America divided – because they benefit greatly from it. They want us to see each other as enemies because they feed off of it. They attack our institutions, whether it is our Capitol, our elected leaders or our justice system, without caring about the lasting damage it does.

In America, leadership is not a birthright but instead it’s the choice of voters after respectful debates of ideas. And partisan leaders on both sides of the aisle are increasingly threatened by the growing desire for debate.

To be clear, while both parties are to some extent responsible for resorting to narrative and aggravating division, it is the current Administration and the hard Left that are aggressively pushing censorship and even elimination of First Amendment freedoms.

Dialogue Is Our Humanity

But why does debate and this current censorship matter?  Why not just pick a left or right bubble and live within it?  Or simply allow the government and its media to tell us what to think?  The answer is not only that this contradicts the very core of the 1st Amendment, a necessary cornerstone of our government and our way of life.  It is not only that it furthers a nefarious goal of making the American people enemies of one another.  These, of course, are serious problems, especially to those who believe in American democracy.  But perhaps an even larger problem is that it works to destroy the very core of our existence.

Life in the end is a dialogue.  We participate by speaking, asking questions, listening, writing, reading, responding, agreeing, disagreeing, learning.  A dialogue cannot be open and honest if information is restricted or denied.  With censorship we lose part of the dialogue, and we allow someone else to create a dialogue for us.  We stop learning.  We stop thinking.  We stop speaking.  And we lose part of our humanity.  We become nothing more than a tool for those creating the dialogue for us.

Currently the government and others in power through pressure on private platforms are trying to shape our dialogue.  The media gives us the stories they want discussed in a way that will create preordained narratives.  But our information is limited and therefore our dialogue is limited and we are ultimately limiting our individual humanity as we delegate our power to dialogue to the state.

To retain our humanity and our freedom we must remember that goals of personal comfort and protection from negative narratives are not in the end in our best interest.  Free thought and free dialogue are.  We must remember that good dialogue requires others and their possibly differing and uncomfortable viewpoints.  Those others are not enemies.  Silencing and censorship are the enemy as is a state-controlled media. 

As the mounting proof of censorship and silencing becomes both truth and news we must demand that our news media actually provide us with news that is truth and truth that is news.  All of it.  Only then can we dialogue as fully engaged free people.

A Brief Note on Biden’s State of the Union Speech and Sanders’ Response

 I always watch the State of the Union speeches.  Since I first began to understand America in my Junior High Civics class I have believed it is my duty as a citizen to listen to these often boring, angering, or sometimes joyful events.  I want to hear and see the entire ordeal rather than take various reporters’ interpretations of the event.  I also watch the opposition’s response.

Last night’s affair was in many ways not unusual (even if it sort of looked like the start of a real affair when the first lady and the second gentleman had a good smooch on the lips, but then I guess that’s Washington today).  Below are my brief reactions to the President’s State of the Union speech and to Governor Sanders’ response.

Biden’s speech

At some point during Biden’s long and mostly boring speech I decided that the President engages in some sort of magical thinking.  So many lies, misleading statements, and half-truths came out of his mouth that I quickly lost count.  I think that Biden gave us a litany of things he wishes to be true.  The problem is that he states these things as fact - he believes what he says and he expects us to believe it too

I am not a psychologist, but is this the pattern of a pathological liar?  Joe’s lies go back at least as far as his law school plagiarism days.  On the campaign trail he has related tales of things he has done which prove to be entirely false.

So the lies did not surprise me.  I actually expect them from this President.  I realize that all our presidents have lied to us about some things, but Joe’s lies are different.  He lies about things that he doesn’t have to.  A president might lie about something because he must, as for example when Kennedy had to keep secret the discussions he and Khrushchev were having about the Cuban Missile Crisis. A president might lie or obfuscate if he has committed some offense (think Nixon and Watergate or Clinton and Monica Lewinsky).  And of course, on the campaign trail, candidates puff up their accomplishments and records.  But Biden lies about things that don’t matter as well as those that do and about easily proven falsehoods (why has he told us he was a truck driver when he was not; why has he lied about trips to the border?).  

I really think Biden can’t help himself, and he certainly gave us a parade of untruths in his speech last night.  The fact checkers are busy and if you google the fact checks of last night’s speech you will find few statements labeled as true, some will be labeled as false, and the majority will indicate that significant context has been left out, thus making the statement misleading at best.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

I do not really think that what Biden gave us was an honest description of the state of the union.  It was more of a speech that took credit that was not due for past activities and a wish list of what he would do if re-elected.  That wish list included sideways attacks on Republicans who we can be sure he will blame if the many government and socialistic programs he outlined do not come to pass.

Perhaps because I expect the lies, however, what bothers me more is that people don’t question Biden’s statements.  Indeed, Americans seem to have forgotten that they can and should question what they are told.  They should at least ask for some proof of the claims being made.  But they do not.  And that indeed troubles me more than the lies themselves. 

People are grading Biden’s speech; I would give him a C.  The content of the speech was probably below that, but the fact that it was delivered in such a way that most Americans will just accept what he said without question raises it to the C level.

Sanders’ Response

Overall, I thought Sanders’ response was not effective.   I was disappointed and had expected more from her.

The speech sounded like a generic Republican campaign speech.  I was looking for a response – a rebuttal to Biden’s lies and false promises.  

Clearly Sanders had prepared her speech in advance and she delivered it with compassion, but I wondered if she had even listened to Biden’s speech.  She certainly had time to insert some specific and pointed rebuttals during the time between the end of Biden’s speech and the beginning of hers – the time while the mainstream media commentators were lavishing Biden with praise, buying all his lies without question.

But no, she gave us a campaign speech that really said nothing new.  Her story of her secret trip to Iraq with President Trump was very moving, but in the end it did not really relate to Biden’s speech.  She repeatedly told us that Republicans are the good guys and Democrats bad (or crazy).  But we hear that and its reverse every day depending on which news outlets we visit. 

Biden’s speech was open to so many attacks based on both factual inaccuracies along with political philosophy.  This response missed a huge opportunity.  My grade for this one is a D.

In conclusion

I would have liked to have seen the honesty of Pres. Ford (see below)  in Biden’s speech and a true rebuttal from Sanders.

War, What is it good for?

 In the 1970 song “War”, the answer to the above question is “absolutely nothing” but in the real world, in the political world, sadly it too often serves the needs of the powerful who have only their own interests in mind. 

I am tired of watching the people of Ukraine suffer as they serve as the proxy victims in our proxy war against Russia.  I realize that they do not think of themselves that way, but my reading of this war and the complicated history leading to it directs me to that conclusion. 

President Putin of Russia fired the first shot, but before that shot was fired many besides Putin marched in the parade toward war.  Few took the time to understand the Russian mindset and the complicated history between Russia and Ukraine, or to acknowledge the West’s aggressive enticement of Ukraine to become a fully Western State.  There were few if any real attempts to negotiate a settlement of sorts that would have prevented war, gained a stronger democracy for Ukraine, and appeased Russia’s fears of the West.

A brief and highly abridged history

As part of the Pontic Steppe in Eastern Europe, the area now known as Ukraine has been an important and sought after part of that geographical area since prehistoric times.  Many Russians see Kyiv (Rus) as the birthplace of Russia.  Ukraine has come under the rule of several rulers and other countries. During the 1600s, in order to escape Polish-Lithuanian rule, Ukraine sought protection from Russia which led to its rule by Tsarist Russia.  In the late 1700s, the far west of Ukraine fell under Austrian control while the rest became part of Russia.

At the time of the Russian revolution, Ukraine tried to break free of Russia.  In 1919 several armies fought one another in Ukraine - Kyiv changed hands 6 times.  In 1921, Ukraine was incorporated into Soviet Russia.  During WWII, much of Ukraine supported and fought with the Nazis whom Ukrainians saw as liberators from Russia.  Russians were united against the Nazis and their supporters, and the Ukrainian Nazi support continues to be a sore spot with Russians to this day.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state.  In 2004 the “Orange Revolution” revealed a Ukraine clearly divided between those Ukrainians, many of whom are ethnic Russians, who wanted to maintain strong ties with Russia, and those who were more interested in creating ties with the West and its organizations such as NATO.

Russia, for its part, includes both those who would like to see Soviet Russia restored including full incorporation of Ukraine into Russia as well as those who back an independent and westernized Ukraine.  Russia, however, generally silences opposition to its official pro-war stance.

War moves from likelihood to certainty

It would be naïve to think that both Russia and the West were not both doing all that they could to influence Ukraine and its people to become their allies.  The steppe upon which Ukraine sits is politically and strategically important.   Not only is the land incredibly fertile, it provides a buffer zone between Russia and the West/NATO countries.  The eastern portion of Ukraine is militarily significant in its location as a possible staging area for attacks on Russia.

The Russian Federation annexed Crimea in 2014 and has fought with Ukraine over other eastern portions of Ukraine since then.  In 2016 Ukraine joined an agreement with the European Union that allowed trade and visa-free travel between Ukraine and the EU.  In 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution to put it on a stated path towards membership in the EU and NATO.  The original plan was to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, but that was moved forward, and the application was made in early February 2022.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin began more assertively voicing his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, in part because of the military threat to Russia of NATO having the ability to place missiles or other military equipment at the border with Russia.   Here one must remember that NATO was established to counter the threat posed by the then Soviet Union and its mission continues to be to secure its member countries against Russia.   Since the fall of Soviet Russia NATO has aggressively sought to expand its membership.  Whether this is a threat to Russia in reality or not is less important than the fact that Russia sees this as a threat.

Throughout 2021 Russia moved its troops to the Ukrainian border, obviously building towards a potential invasion.  During that time the United States, while condemning the buildup, took no real action against it.  President Biden threatened sanctions etc., but it was always too little too late and in the opinion of many only presented a face of weakness to Russia that encouraged Putin to be more aggressive. 

To others, many of the statements made by President Biden seemed to be goading President Putin into taking military action.  Why he might do that is open to speculation, but a war would distract from the rising inflation and other problems he was and is facing in this country, it would create someone (Russia/Putin) to blame for continuing economic problems,  it might make Biden some sort of hero (he did keep putting forth the idea that this was going to be his Cuban Missile Crisis so perhaps he thought it would gain him a Kennedy-like respect), and then there is the fact that since he was a Senator, Biden has made no secret of the fact that he hates Putin.

Shortly after Ukraine made its application to NATO, and after Biden effectively gave Putin no possible way to withdraw without losing face, on Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whose war is it?

The United States and other Western and NATO countries proclaimed their support for Ukraine.  Ukraine asked for money – we sent it.  Ukraine asked for military equipment – we sent it.  Finding the precise figure of aid, both military and humanitarian, to Ukraine is difficult, but it is somewhere around $50 billion in 2022 in direct aid and over $100 billion if one counts indirect aid.  The majority of that is for defense, and the funding does not show any sign of ceasing.  We are sending our store of weapons  - tanks, missiles, guns, and other military equipment - and that too shows no sign of ceasing, even though we are so depleted that this country is in a position where it does not have the ability to defend itself. 

Ukrainian President Zelensky has done a marvelous job of building strength and unity amongst his people.  He also does a wonderful job of begging the West and U.S.  for money to support them.  Many people of that country are firm in their belief that with the U.S. behind them and supplying them, that they can defeat Russia without making any concessions whatsoever.  Indeed, many believe that they can even see Crimea returned. 

With this confidence inspired by the U.S. and other backers, they are not interested in negotiating an end to the fighting.  This Ukrainian digging in and belief in total victory might be far less strong if not for US and other Western support.  So, are the Ukrainians fighting their war, or are we, the West, fighting that war?  And if it is we who are fighting it then why is it Ukrainian and not our blood that is being spilled?

Why isn’t the thought of peace even on the table?

If we really cared about the Ukrainian people as we say we do, then why aren’t we seeking peaceful solutions to end this; solutions that indeed might result in some territory loss but that would end the loss of life?

Yet instead we escalate.  In 2022 President Biden told us that sending tanks to Ukraine would result in World War 3.  In January of 2023 he announced he would send tanks to Ukraine.  We are going to train the Ukrainians on how to use the tanks, bringing them to the U.S. for that training.  When one of those tanks kills a Russian is that an aggression by Ukraine or by the United States?  And Putin has threatened use of nuclear weapons if the United States or NATO countries are the ones actually fighting this war.

If this does become World War 3, then we are going to have a hard time since our weapons stockpiles will be empty and parts to rebuild often come from China who will likely be aligned with Russia and not inclined to assist us.  Does our President even consider let alone understand such things? Does he understand that it is young Ukrainians dying for his cause?  Does he care?

Where are the diplomats, the peacemakers who will use reason and negotiation rather than human life to solve their differences?  Let America lead on that front instead of as warmongers.

We are using the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they are using us as well.  But when their usefulness is over, will we care at all what happens to them?  I doubt it.  Because this is not really a war about freedom or democracy.  It is a war about a few men wanting to puff up and show off their power.

I close with a few lines from Edwin Starr’s 1970 song “War” written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong:

War, I despise

'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

 

Life is much too short and precious

To spend fighting wars each day

War can't give life

It can only take it away, oh

 

Peace, love and understanding, tell me

Is there no place for them today?

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh

 

War, huh (God y'all)

What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)

Say it, say it, say it, say it

 

War (good God), huh (now, huh)

What is it good for?

Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Successful Government Does Not Tolerate Stubbornness

 The party that gets things done….is turning out not to be today’s Republicans.  At least not those elected to the House of Representatives.

They have had since mid-November when all election results were in to decide how they would move forward with their small House majority come January 1.  The people elected them to DO things.  Amend and pass legislation that would curb Biden’s unlimited and destructive spending, deal with the illegal immigrant crisis and the crisis at our borders, stand up for the American values of the people who elected them.  Others hoped also that they would objectively and fairly investigate some things that need investigating – not for political gain or retribution, but because Americans need those activities that are contrary to the interests of America and its people to be dealt with. 

The Republicans could have started working on these tasks on day one.  But instead, what did they do?  They created a veritable circus over their inability to elect a House Speaker.

Contrast this with typical behavior of the Democrat party.  While I adamantly disagree with and oppose many of the positions and policies of the progressive Left, I have to admit that not only do they have a clear agenda, they also effectively implement it.  They work like a well-oiled machine that understands that they agree on an end goal and that they will work in unison toward that goal even when one at times has to agree to something to which they may personally be opposed.   They are willing to make personal concessions, overlook personal preferences, to achieve the greater goal of implementing their agenda – the agenda that Democrat voters put them in place to effectuate.

Not so the Republicans.  With no viable alternative to Kevin McCarthy as candidate for Speaker, a small handful of Republicans who have personal gripes against McCarthy decided to hold hostage the Speakership, making it impossible for McCarthy to be elected while presenting no candidate who could garner more than a score or so of votes. 

In the first vote, a variety of other Republicans siphoned 19 votes off of the other Republican votes for McCarthy.   In the second round of voting Rep. Gaetz nominated Jim Jordon while Jordon re-nominated McCarthy.  In that round Jordan received all of the 19 Republican non-McCarthy votes.  In round 3, Jordan’s vote count increased to 20.

218 votes are required to elect a Speaker.  There are 222 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats.  All 212 Democrats have voted for their candidate for Speaker,  Rep. Jeffries.  At one point during today’s voting it was reported that some of the Republicans who opposed McCarthy stated they would rather have Democrat Jeffries than McCarthy as Speaker notwithstanding that Jeffries would likely further a Democrat rather than Republican agenda.

After 3 votes the House adjourned.  Voting will continue until a Speaker is elected and until such time no work can go forward – no committees, no bills brought to the floor, no other votes.  None of the business that we the people elected our representatives to conduct.

Yes, a Speaker is important.  He or she leads the House, determines what bills will come to the floor for vote, oversees House procedures and rules, etc.  And there will obviously be a different focus depending on whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat.  But this display by the Republicans is ridiculous.

The handful who seem to have a personal dislike for McCarthy had plenty of time to develop support for an alternate candidate.  But all they did during that time was to badmouth McCarthy and assert he should not be Speaker.  They may have gotten their anger off their chest and they may have thought they were acting bold by being so negatively assertive, but what they did was not constructive and has resulted in a debacle that not only reflects poorly on the entire Republican party but also means that the bold agenda and action that the Republican party promised the voters will be stalled and delayed. 

I believe that the people of this country want their elected representatives to work for them; I know that is what I want.  I don’t know if McCarthy is or is not the best candidate for Speaker (and actually I quite like Jim Jordan) but I do know that McCarthy is the only Republican candidate that currently has any possibility to be elected.  And we need a Speaker before the House can do anything.

Working for the people means that sometimes you have to compromise.  One has to wonder if these folks who will not vote for the one currently viable Republican Speaker are going to stall every piece of legislation put forward if there is one word or phrase they do not like.  One wonders if they are going to essentially sink their own party’s agenda simply to prove some selfish point or believe that never ever giving an inch is really a constructive way to conduct the people’s business.  (Republicans could learn something here from the Democrats.)  One has to pick one’s battles; fighting everyone just to prove you are a fighter does not impress me and I doubt that it impresses most Americans.

Perhaps the adjournment today was a good thing.  Perhaps a good night’s sleep will cause this handful of selfish rebels to realize that they are doing nothing but hurting those who elected them and believed in them.  Tomorrow is another day and we can always hope.